Tweet
It took just 29 days for the Left Front Government in West Bengal to allot more than one acre plot to cricketer Sourav Ganguly for opening a school in the posh Salt Lake City in 2009. Finding this alacrity on part of the State Government to be unusual, the Supreme Court has reserved verdict on the fate of this allotment, which was challenged in a PIL by NGO Humanity and other individuals.
The court wondered how the State Government managed to act swiftly to hand over a plot measuring 63.04 cottah (over an acre) to Ganguly without issuing any public advertisement or floating tenders and that too in less than a month.
The bench of Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly said, “We have to appreciate the efficiency of the Government to act expeditiously. But it has to act efficiently always and not in a particular case.” What made the court ponder over this issue was the previous track record of the Government.
Ganguly was earlier allotted a plot measuring 48 cottah for the purpose of running a school through public advertisement. The advertisement was issued on November 4, 2006 but the allotment letter was issued on February 22, 2007, more than three months later. The case was similar when Ganguly was allotted an industrial plot in Salt Lake City for opening a bottled mineral water unit. The decision to allot the plot was taken on May 6, 1999 but the order in this regard was issued as late as on December 7, 1999.
Contrary to the delay in processing previous allotment requests, the fresh allotment of over one acre plot caught the court’s attention. On January 19, 2009 Ganguly wrote to the State agencies to exchange his 48 cottah with a larger plot to comply with stipulations laid down by the Education Board. Without wasting time, the State Government announced the fresh allotment through an executive order on February 17, 2009.
Senior advocate Jayanto Mitra, who appeared for Ganguly parried the Court’s queries by pleading ignorance of the above facts and said that the fresh allotment was merely in exchange of his earlier allotment and should not be seen as a separate allotment. The State Government too covered its back by claiming the alacrity on its part had much to do with the cause of education to be served as the allotment concerned a school.
What could add to Ganguly’s worries was another query by the bench which wondered on what basis the cricketer wrote to the State demanding a bigger plot when there was nothing on record to show any communication received from the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) disqualifying his previous allotment.
The bench said, “He (Ganguly) does not receive any communication from ICSE.” Citing this as a reason to hold the fresh plot was a separate allotment that required fresh advertisement, the bench kept the suspense by reserving its verdict on the petition.
The court wondered how the State Government managed to act swiftly to hand over a plot measuring 63.04 cottah (over an acre) to Ganguly without issuing any public advertisement or floating tenders and that too in less than a month.
The bench of Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly said, “We have to appreciate the efficiency of the Government to act expeditiously. But it has to act efficiently always and not in a particular case.” What made the court ponder over this issue was the previous track record of the Government.
Ganguly was earlier allotted a plot measuring 48 cottah for the purpose of running a school through public advertisement. The advertisement was issued on November 4, 2006 but the allotment letter was issued on February 22, 2007, more than three months later. The case was similar when Ganguly was allotted an industrial plot in Salt Lake City for opening a bottled mineral water unit. The decision to allot the plot was taken on May 6, 1999 but the order in this regard was issued as late as on December 7, 1999.
Contrary to the delay in processing previous allotment requests, the fresh allotment of over one acre plot caught the court’s attention. On January 19, 2009 Ganguly wrote to the State agencies to exchange his 48 cottah with a larger plot to comply with stipulations laid down by the Education Board. Without wasting time, the State Government announced the fresh allotment through an executive order on February 17, 2009.
Senior advocate Jayanto Mitra, who appeared for Ganguly parried the Court’s queries by pleading ignorance of the above facts and said that the fresh allotment was merely in exchange of his earlier allotment and should not be seen as a separate allotment. The State Government too covered its back by claiming the alacrity on its part had much to do with the cause of education to be served as the allotment concerned a school.
What could add to Ganguly’s worries was another query by the bench which wondered on what basis the cricketer wrote to the State demanding a bigger plot when there was nothing on record to show any communication received from the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) disqualifying his previous allotment.
The bench said, “He (Ganguly) does not receive any communication from ICSE.” Citing this as a reason to hold the fresh plot was a separate allotment that required fresh advertisement, the bench kept the suspense by reserving its verdict on the petition.
